After months if not years of previously unsuccessful negotiations, the W3C initiative to forge an internationally accepted standard for “Do not track” technology seems to be back on track. Nick Johnson reports.
The US consumer protection watchdog provides guidance on online endorsements. UK advertisers are advised to take notice. Tom McGinn reports.
As concerns over “adtech” transparency grow at perhaps an even faster rate than online advertising, spend, Stephen Groom looks at Hungary’s new laws on agency bonuses and kickbacks and their potential wider implications.
The Network Advertising Initiative self-regulatory Code of Conduct pioneered the concept of giving web users notice and choice regarding online behavioural advertising. Now it has produced guidance for use of non-cookie technologies for the same purpose. Nick Johnson investigates.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 has been passed and will mostly be coming into force on 1 October 2015. Does it implement an EU Directive and what are the key provisions of which marketers should be aware? Ruth Hennessy reports.
ECJ Case 96/14 underlines importance of
ECJ Case 96/14 underlines importance of “plain, intelligible language”
Unwell Monsieur van Hove had loan PPI but sued under EU unfair contract laws when insurers CNP refused to pay out for “total incapacity for work” because his sick note allowed him part time working. Ben Dunham reports.
Georgia based automobile shipment broker Amerifreight offered customers a $50 discount if they reviewed the service online and increased the charge by $50 if they refused. Tom Sharpe reports on the ensuing enforcement action.
Transparency is often a concern in so-called “native advertising” where editorial content includes advertising messages.. To help, the IAB has published “Content and Native Disclosure Guidance” to help marketers comply with consumer laws and the CAP Code. George Garrard reports.
PLT charged a monthly fee for a service including registration with the UK “do not call” list, but failed to tell customers that this was otherwise available free of charge. Was this an illegal “misleading omission”? Barney Sich reports.
